ic_hack_team_leaveLeave the team you're on. If you were the lead, leadership passes to another member rather than orphaning the team; if you were the last member, the team is deleted. Args: { eid? }. Returns: { ok, team }. Required scope: hack:team.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| eid | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true) by explaining exactly what happens in edge cases: if you were the lead, leadership passes to another member; if you were the last member, the team is deleted. It also discloses the required scope (hack:team) and return shape, providing rich behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is tightly written in two sentences, front-loading the core action ('Leave the team you're on') and then providing necessary edge-case details. The Args/Returns/Scope lines are structured and add information without bloat. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite the low complexity (one optional parameter), the description leaves a significant gap: the meaning of 'eid' is unknown. It does explain destructive behavior and return shape (ok, team), which covers the critical aspects. With no output schema to clarify the structure of 'team', the unresolved parameter semantics keeps this from being fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description merely restates the parameter list as 'Args: { eid? }' without explaining what 'eid' represents. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description was expected to compensate, but it provides zero semantic meaning for the parameter. The optional flag is already visible in the schema, so the description adds no value here.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Leave the team you're on.' It provides detailed behavioral context (leadership transfer, team deletion) that clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like ic_hack_team_create, ic_hack_team_join, and ic_hack_team_list. This is a model of purpose clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description makes it clear when to use this tool: when leaving your current hackathon team. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unambiguous given the tool name and title. No prerequisites or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools are clearly scoped to distinct actions (e.g., ic_hack_apply vs. ic_hack_register, ic_rooms_create vs. ic_rooms_join). A few pairs could confuse an agent: floor10_submit_highlight vs. floorcast_push both submit HighlightStories but to different queues, and ic_directory_search / ic_agent_directory_lookup / ic_admin_list_members overlap in searching members. Overall, the long descriptions help disambiguate, but the volume requires careful reading.
The dominant pattern is ic_<domain>_<verb>_<object> (e.g., ic_admin_list_pending_events, ic_headsets_checkout), but there are notable deviations: floor10_* and floorcast_* prefixes break the ic_ convention, and a few tools use noun-style names (ic_health, ic_capabilities, ic_donations_total). Verb placement also varies (get_* vs *_get, e.g., ic_get_my_membership vs. ic_membership_set_profile). Still, most names are readable and predictable.
175 tools is an extreme count for a single MCP server, far beyond the 50+ threshold that indicates an unwieldy surface. While the platform covers many domains (events, files, hackathon, headsets, prints, rooms, etc.), bundling everything into one server makes discovery and selection difficult. This would be better split into several narrowly-scoped servers.
The tool set covers nearly every lifecycle for each domain: CRUD for files/folders, full hackathon admissions and judging, headset lending with waivers and incidents, print farm submission and handoffs, and room coordination. Minor gaps exist: no delete for files/folders, no cancel for events, and some actions (like revoking a Z.ai key or tearing down a room) are explicitly left to human console use. Overall, the surface is remarkably comprehensive for the stated scope.